Research on Language and Computation

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 69–86 | Cite as

Implicit Skolemization: efficient reference to dependent entities

  • Lenhart SchubertEmail author
Original Paper


A direct representation of functional reference is proposed, such as occurs in “All graduates received a job offer (at the job fair); all of them accepted their offer”. The approach makes use of a variant of dynamic predicate logic wherein the values of existentially quantified variables may be functions. The approach also appears helpful with respect to some other problems in semantic representation, in particular bridging anaphora and generic or frame/script-like knowledge.


Functional reference Implicit Skolemization DPL Donkey anaphora Scripts Generic sentences 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahn, D. D. (2003). Presupposition incorporation in adverbial quantification. In Modeling and using context: Proceedings of CONTEXT 2003 (pp. 1–14) Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  2. Ahn, D. D. (2004). The role of situations and presuppositions in Restricting Adverbial quantification. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
  3. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., & Patel-Schneider, P. (Eds.) (2003). The description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementations, and Applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Universities Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barker, C. (2001). Integrity: A syntactic constraint on quantificational scoping. In: K. Megerdoomian and L. A. Bar-el (Eds.): WCCFL 20. USC, p. 56–67, Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carlson G., Pelletier F. (1995). The Generic Book. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. Chierchia G. (1995). Dynamics of Meaning. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. Dekker P. (2002). Pronouns in a pragmatic semantics. Journal of Pragmatics 34:815–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans G. (1980). Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11:337–362Google Scholar
  9. Geurts B. (2002). Donkey business. Linguistics and Philosophy 25:129–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14:39–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hardt, D. (2003). DRT and related theories, lecture IV: The E-type challenge. In ESSLLI 2003 Class Notes, 15th European Summer School in Logic Language and Information, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  12. Krifka M. (1996). Parameterized sum individuals for plural anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 19:555–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Minsky, H. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. Winston (Ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 211–277.Google Scholar
  14. Nouwen, R. (2003). Plural pronominal anaphora in context: Dynamic Aspects of Quantification. Ph.D. thesis, UiL-OTS, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  15. Schank, R. & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.Google Scholar
  16. Schlenker, P. (1999). In P. Tamanji (Ed.), Proceedings of the North-East Linguistics Society NELS 29. Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Schlenker, P. (2004). Scopal independence: On branching & island-escaping readings of indefinites and disjunctions. Journal of Semantics (to appear).Google Scholar
  18. Schubert, L. (1999). Dynamic Skolemization. In H. Bunt & R. Muskens (Eds.), Computing Meaning (vol. 1), pp. 219–253. Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Schubert, L. (2004). Variables as functions: Efficient reference to dependent entitie. In Workshop on Semantic Approaches to Binding Theory, 16th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (ESSLLI 2004), Universié Henri Poincaré, Nancy.Google Scholar
  20. Steedman, M. (1999). Alternating quantifier scope in CCG. In Proceedings. of 37th Ann. Meeting of The Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’99), College Park, MD, pp. 301–308.Google Scholar
  21. Steedman, M. (2003). Scope Alternation and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Informatics, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  22. van den Berg, M. H. (1993). Full dynamic plural logic. In K. Bimb’o, & A. M’at’e (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Logic and anguage. Budapest.Google Scholar
  23. van den Berg, M. H. (1996a). Discourse grammar and dynamic logic. In P. Dekker & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 93–112). Department of Philosophy: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  24. van den Berg, M. H. (1996b). The internal structure of discourse. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  25. Wang, L., McCready, E., & Asher N. (2006). Information dependency in quatificational coordination. In K. Turner & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  26. Winter Y. (1997). Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20:399–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations